sufficiently intimated, in i. 10, seq.; future punishment, in iv. 11, seq., vi. 4, seq., x. 26, seq., xii. 29. That the names Hades and Gehenna do not occur in our epistle, would be a singular argument to prove that Paul did not write it. Where, in all the acknowledged epistles of Paul, is either of these words to be found, excepting in one solitary quotation, in 1 Cor. xv. 55, which exhibits inc? As to Satan, this appellation does not indeed occur; but its equivalent ápoλoc occurs, in ii. 14. The word Satan does not occur in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon are these epistles, therefore, spurious? In regard to the resurrection of the dead, it is sufficient to refer to vi. 2, xi. 35, and what is implied in xii. 22, seq. That the writer of our epistle did not make frequent mention of these topics is easily accounted for, on the ground that he was more immediately occupied with other subjects. Are there not several of Paul's acknowledged epistles which omit the same topics? But who undertakes to prove from this, that they are spurious? (8.) “But not a word of Christ's resurrection; a theme on which Paul everywhere descants," p. 97. And what is implied in What, then, does Heb. xiii. 20, mean? viii. 1; i. 3; x. 12; xii. 2; ii. 9; v. 7--9? out the places, where Paul discusses this subject in his epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, in the second to the Thessalonians, in the first to Timothy, and some others? 66 (9.) If Paul did not become wholly unlike himself, and change his very nature, he could not have written the epistle to the Hebrews; which not only contains ideas foreign to his, but opposed to his," p. 101. This is assertion, not argument. The only way to convince those who differ in opinion from us, is to offer arguments for what we avouch; not merely to assume or assert it to be true. (10.) The grand point of Paul's doctrines is, that Christ is the Saviour of all; that he died, or made atonement, for all. There is nothing of this in our epistle. Paul everywhere makes belief in Christ essential to salvation, and looks with contempt upon Jewish rites and ceremonies. But our author evidently handles Judaism with a sparing hand, and treats with honour the shell, from which he endeavours to extract the nut," p. 102, seq. In regard to the first of these allegations, the reader is referred to Heb. ii. 9—11; v. 9; ix. 15. 28; xiii. 10; which afford hints suffi ciently plain, that the writer did not regard the Messiah as the Saviour of the Jews only. But to treat, in our epistle, of the extent of his salvation among the Gentiles, plainly was not apposite to the particular design he had in view; and he might abstain from this topic, out of regard to the prejudices which those whom he addressed probably entertained (in common with most Jews) respecting it. Are there none of the acknowledged Pauline epistles, which do not treat of this subject? And must Paul always bring it into view, whether to do so would be timely or untimely, apposite or inapposite to the object of his epistle? In respect to the Judaizing spirit of the writer, I must refer once more to chap. viii.-x.; and what has already been said above, in examining the fourth objection. And with regard to belief in Christ as essential to salvation, the great object of all the epistle to the Hebrews is to urge it. Dispute with one who denies this, would surely be in vain. (11.) "Paul no where represents Christ as a priest, nor his intercession as procuring favours for them," p. 109, seq. In respect to this objection, I refer the reader to what has already been said, pp. 163 (h) and 165 (2.) (12.) "Paul has no where drawn a parallel between Christ and Moses," p. 111. But he did something very much like it, when he represented Moses. and Christ as mediators, Gal. iii. 19, seq. And if he has not formally done it in any of his acknowledged epistles, it is enough to say, it was because the occasion did not call for it. (13.) “Our author says nothing of the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of Satan, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ; ideas predominant in Paul's epistles," p. 115. But is not a kingdom ascribed to Christ, in Heb. i. 8, 9; i. 10, seq., ii. 7, seq.; x. 13; xii. 2? And are not Christians represented as belonging to it, in xii. 28? And are the second epistle to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Philippians not genuine, because the first of these phrases is not in them? Is not the power or reign of Satan recognized, in Heb. ii. 14, 15? And as to evayyéλɩov, see iv. 2; iv. 6. Apply, too, the same method of reasoning to Paul's acknowledged epistles. Evayyeλíw is a favourite word with this apostle; yet Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, do not exhibit it. The word ɛvayyéλov, too, is not found in the epistle to Titus. But is not the thing, which it indicates, n • p. 12. seg. e C } -27, ze, in xii. 25 A FOTO DE MIss being still most The emps, also, the I། web, eg, in Heb. Denges with the Sy urge the sw that the sperm apostles F Yet he not that it affords a te the epistle an argument, all the Pauline S: comp. i. 9 1 uig for the -22: v. 6-20; aight to such Testament, by s very different. er of our epistle the Holy Ghost. στον πειράται, ἡ γραφὴ και το Μωυσής γράφει 125 λέγει, Ησαΐας which are not Bates. Instead of these και πείνα τὸ ἅγιον, λέγει ΠΕΙΝ ΤΙ λέγει, είρηκε, μαρτύρει, y diversity of author T this representation of Dr. Schult, Sevfurth has not only assented, bit, in his Essay on the Peculiarities of the Epistle to the Hebrews,* be has placed the modes of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures at the head y, alemate, so far as the style of the author is concerned ; eos mrbus, Loa Vet. Test. laudandi moreover, says, "that plainly Paul makes less frequent use, in general, of the Old Testament Scriptures, than is made of them in the epistle to the Hebrews;" an objection which has been frequently alleged by others. The result of an attentive and repeated examination of our epistle, and of all the acknowledged Pauline epistles, in respect to the mode and frequency of quotation, has led me to conclusions somewhat different from those which Schulz and Seyffarth have adopted. I shall present them, with my reasons for adopting them. (a) The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is by no means uniform in his mode of appeal to the Jewish Scriptures. In twenty-one cases, viz. i. 5; i. 6; i. 7; iì. 12; iii. 7; iv. 3; v. 5, 6; vi. 4 ; vii. 17; vii. 21 ; viii. 5; viii. 8; ix. 20; x. 5; x. 8; x. 9; x. 15; x. 30; xii. 26; xiii. 5, he has used εἶπεν, εἴρηκε, λέγει, λέγων, ματύρει, φησί, with a nominative never expressed, except in three instances, viz. Heb. iii. 7; vi. 14, by implication, and x. 15. In fourteen of these cases, we may gather from the context, that Oɛòs, or Kúpios, is the probable nominative, i. e. the one which the writer meant his readers should supply. Four of the cases have Xpisos, or 'Inoous, for a nominative, viz. ii. 13; x. 5; x. 8; x. 9, which is implied; two of them have rò пvɛúμa tò äyιov expressed, viz. iii. 7; x. 15; and one only has Oɛòç expressed, and that because it was unavoidable, vi. 14. In five cases more, which are introduced merely with wáλɩv, kaì, or dè, viz. i. 5; i. 8; i. 10; ii. 13; x. 30, but stand connected with a preceding quotation, the grammatical connexion requires us to supply εiɛ, λέγων, λέγει, &c., i. e. Κύριος or Θεὸς λέγει, εἶπε, &c. In two cases of the like nature, viz. ii. 13; ii. 14, Ἰησοῦς or Χρισός is the implied nominative. In the whole, there are twenty-five instances of quotation in which the nominative is not expressed, in nineteen cases of which it probably is Oɛòc, and Xpesòs in the other six. There are two cases only, in which the nominative rò πveũμa tò äyɩov is expressed; and one only where Oɛog is actually inserted. If one might trust to the representations of Dr. Schulz and Seyffarth, he must, of course, be led to believe, that these are all the kinds of quotation which our epistle presents. This, however, is not the case. In ii. 6, we have διεμαρτύρατο δὲ που τὶς, νίκ. Δαβίδ; in iii. 15, ἐν τῷ Xeyɛoðaι, when it is said, (like in the Mishna ;) in iv. 4, εiρnkε γὰρ που, sc. ἡ γραφὴ plainly, which formula is repeated by πάλιν in iv. 5 ; in iv. 7, we find iv Aaßid Xéywv, saying by David; in ix. 20, Mwüons N in Heb. iii. 1, seq. is, to compare Christ as appointed over the household of God, with Moses in a similar office. Since then meant curator adis sacræ, ædituus, and such an office was the very object of comparison, nothing can be more natural, than that our author should have named Christi. c. àrórroXoc. See Comm. on Heb. iii. 1. And why should it be considered as incompatible with that reverence which Paul had for Christ, that he should call him áróOTOXOC? The same Paul, in Rom. xv. 8, calls Jesus Christ exoror TC TAToufic. Is crores, a more honorable appellation than anóorodoc? Or because Paul calls Christ diákovog in this case, are we to draw the inference, that he did not write the epistle to the Romans, since this word is nowhere else applied by him in this manner? Such a conclusion would be of the same nature, and of the same validity, as that which Bertholdt has drawn from the use of amorrodoc and apxesperic in the epistle to the Hebrews. Thus much for words and phrases. Bertholdt next brings forward sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews, which are diverse, he says, from Paul's, if not in opposition to them. (1.) "In Heb. x. 25, seq., the speedy coming of Christ is mentioned; and so it is often by Paul. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, it is evidently a moral coming, a moral change; whereas Paul every where speaks of it as an actual visible coming of Christ." This difficulty depends entirely upon the writer's exegesis. Whatever the nature of the coming of Christ may be, I venture to say, it is palpably represented in the same manner, in the epistle to the Hebrews and in the epistles of Paul. Indeed, so far has the representation, in the epistle to the Hebrews, appeared to be from being plainly a moral one, that some of the most distinguished commentators have understood it, as having respect to the natural changes that are to take place, when Christ shall come at the end of the world. So Storr; and others, also, before and after him. Paul surely has little or nothing, which more certainly designates the actual, visible coming of Christ, than this epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5, 6. Phil. i. 10. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iii. 13. v. 1-6; 1 Tim. vi. 13-16. Tit. ii. 11-13. Compare, also, with these representations, 2 Thess. ii. 1-10, where Paul explains his respect to the coming of Christ. Indeed, so much alike i ver. 23. tation of this subject, in the epistle to the Hebrews that many critics have used this very circum author of both must have been the same r |